|
A couple of years ago when I appeared as one of Ron Paul's witnesses (the
first one, actually) during his House of Representatives hearings on the Fed,
the Democrats got the biggest leftist on the committee to smear, libel, and
slander me by repeating the smears, libels, and slanders about me (and
virtually all other libertarians and conservatives) by the left-wing hate
group known as the Southern
Poverty Law Center. The hate group's typical line is this: 1) DiLorenzo
wrote a book critical of Lincoln's economic policies; 2) Therefore, he must
want to bring back slavery. Since we now live in a nation of morons, the SPLC
is able to raise millions of dollars in contributions from below-50-I.Q.
liberals and leftists with such smears. "Send us money and we will keep
an eye on these people," they say. (This is the same group of
communistic crackpots who convinced Big Sister Janet Napolitano to publicly
announce that people with Ron Paul bumper stickers on their cars may be
considered potential terrorists by her Department
of Fatherland Security).
Paul Krugman participated in this libelous smear in one of his NY
Times columns, labeling me Ron Paul's "Johnnie Reb economist."
(I prefer that to "politico-journalistic whore"). He said nothing
at all about my critiques of the explosion of economic statism during the
Lincoln administration, the focus of all my writings on the subject. Instead,
he played along with his fellow totalitarians and their meaningless
"Neo-Confederate" blather.
But in a recent
blog Krugman proved once again what a fraud and a liar he is by writing
that "Lincoln was actually a big government interventionist" whose
"most dramatic departure from standard economic policy was . . .
debasing the currency." This means that when he participated in the
Southern Poverty Law Center smear of yours truly he was obviously cognizant
of the fact that libertarians like myself and Ron Paul are critical of
Lincoln not because we want to bring back slavery (!!) but because, as
Krugman says, he ushered in big-government interventionism and the debasing
of the currency with his National Currency Acts and Legal Tender acts.
The purpose of all the over-the-top smears, as outlined in Saul Alinsky's Rules
for Radicals, the "bible" of Obammunists like Krugman, is
to censor public criticism of healthcare socialism in particular and Big,
Out-of-Control Government in general.
In a recent blog Democratic Party propagandist Paul Krugman claimed that
after the Lincoln administration nationalized the money supply with its National
Currency Acts, Legal Tender Acts, and the creation of the greenback dollar,
"nothing bad happened" during the years when the gold
standard was abandoned in the late nineteenth century.
The economics profession knows better. In a scholarly article entitled
"Money versus Credit Rationing: Evidence for the National Banking Era,
1880-1914," by Michael Bordo, Peter Rappoport, and Anna Schwartz (in
Claudia Goldin, editor, Strategic
Factors in Nineteenth-Century American Economic Growth, Univ. of
Chicago Press, 1992), the authors concluded that the period of time referred
to by Krugman:
". . . was characterized by monetary and cyclical instability,
four banking panics, frequent stock market crashes, and other
financial disturbances." Krugman has a very unique definition of
"NOTHING bad."
|
|
